2017 (1) TMI 1130

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 01.03.2006 (as amended) 1.1 The issue involved is as to whether the cement cleared by the appellant to the customers covered under serial No.1C of the Notification No.4/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 read with Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 and whether such consumers can be categorized as institutional or industrial consumer. 2. The appellant has been represented by Ld. Advocate Sh. Vipul Agarwal and Revenue has been represented by Ld. AR, Amresh Jain. 3. The brief facts are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Cement and Clinker falling under Chapter heading 252329 and was clearing the same, inter alia,to various buyers in 50kg bags. Such buyers included manufacturer of excisable ite....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s must not be required to be declared under the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 or SWMPC Rules . 4. After careful consideration of the facts of the case and the submissions of both the sides, it appears that the issue is squarely covered by CESTAT decisions in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichi-2008-TOIL-2328-CESTAT-Mad. and Heidelberg Cement (India) Ltd. and M/s Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. v/s CCE, Nagpur, Raigad 2014-TOIL- 1433 (CESTAT Mum.) CESTAT Bombay in the case of Heidelberg Cement (India) Ltd. and M/s Ultra Tech Cement Ltd (supra) in its paras 5.4 and 5.6 observes as under: 5.4. There is no dispute that the goods were sold by the appellant direct....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Notification pertains to goods cleared to industrial/institutional consumers and as this aspect was overlooked by the Legal metrology expert as also by the learned Commissioner, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The Board s clarification on the relevant question was wrongly by-passed by the adjudicating authority. We have found favour with the assessee s case in view of the clarification issued by the CBEC, which is to the effect that no RSP requires to be printed on the goods sold to industrial/institutional consumers as defined under the rules framed under the Standards of Weights and Measures Act and that such goods would be covered under SI. No. 1B or 1C of Notification No. 4/2006-C.E. by virtue of the Second Proviso to....